Use of sophorolipids and derivatives thereof in combination with pesticides as adjuvant/additive for plant protection and the industrial non-crop field

ABSTRACT

Use of sophorolipids as adjuvants in combination with pesticides as tank mix additive and/or as formulation additive for crop protection and for the industrial non-crop sector.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

The present application is a continuation application of U.S. Ser. No.13/497,588 filed Mar. 22, 2012, which is a U.S. National Phase ofPCT/EP2010/062600 filed Aug. 30, 2010, the entire contents of which areincorporated herein by reference.

The invention relates to the use of sophorolipids and/or derivativesthereof and compositions as a formulating additive and/or tank mixadditive (also called adjuvant) for pesticides or pesticide mixtures.

In crop protection, in pest control compositions and also in theindustrial non-crop sector, the purpose of improving the biologicalactivity of such pesticides or pesticide mixtures is often pursued byusing what are called adjuvants or else auxiliaries or added substances.The activity is frequently also referred to as efficacy. The PesticidesSafety Directorate (PSD, the executive arm of the Health and SafetyExecutive, a non-state, public organization in Great Britain) defines anadjuvant as a substance other than water which is not in itself activeas a pesticide but which enhances or supports the effectiveness of apesticide (http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/approvals). These substances areeither added to the aqueous spray solutions shortly before delivery andspray application (as a tank mix additive) or incorporated directly intocrop protection product formulations. In the context of the use of theword “adjuvant”, patents or the literature often use, as synonym, theterms “surfactant” or “wetting agent”, which, however, are far toowide-ranging and may be interpreted more as a generic term. On the basisof the use advised here, recourse is made to the term “adjuvant”, sincethis better describes the function of the sophorolipids. Sophorolipids,as will be shown later, produce virtually no wetting/spreading. Incontrast, many of the surfactants or wetting agents known in cropprotection display a very high spreading behavior, including, forexample, trisiloxanes.

In the art there are numerous crop protection active ingredients whichachieve acceptable efficacy, i.e., an effect with practical relevance,only with the aid of adjuvants. The adjuvants help here to compensatethe weaknesses of the active ingredient, such as, for example, the UVsensitivity of avermectins (which are degradated by ultravioletradiation) or the water instability of sulfonylureas. More recent activeingredients are generally not water-soluble, and, in order to be able todistribute them effectively on a target=target organism=plants,adjuvants are vital in the aqueous spray solution, in order tocompensate the poor wetting of surfaces, by means of the physicalinfluencing of the aqueous solutions. Moreover, adjuvants help toovercome technical application problems, such as low water applicationvolumes, varying water qualities, and the trend of increased applicationspeeds. Enhancing the pesticide activity and compensating weaknesses ofthe crop protection products by means of adjuvants is generally referredto as boosting the efficacy of the application of crop protectionproducts.

The unskilled person might suppose that all commercially availablewetting agents/surfactants (in the cosmetics segment or in the householdcleaning products sector, for example) boost the efficacy of pesticides.That, however, is not the case, as has also been observed in numerouspublications (see, for example, in Pesticide Formulation and AdjuvantTechnology, edited by Chester L. Foy and David W. Pritchard. CRC PressLLC, 1996, pages 323-349).

It is, therefore, surprising and nonobvious that sophorolipids boost theefficacy of pesticides, and therefore behave as adjuvants.

Certain publications teach that certain glycolipids, such asrhamnolipids, may themselves exert an intrinsic pesticidal effect (US2005/0266036 or else Yoo D S, Lee B S, Kim E K (2005), Characteristicsof microbial biosurfactant as an antifungal agent against plantpathogenic fungus. J Microbiol Biotechnol 15:1164-1169). It shouldtherefore be stated that this patent application does not describeadjuvants within the meaning of the definition of the UK PSD.

US 2005/0266036 A1 describes biological wetting agents, produced bymicrobes, for use against pests, as for example of nematodes. Here, thewetting agents or the microorganisms which produce the wetting agentsare placed directly, as biopesticides, so to speak, onto the pests, fordirect control thereof. Examples are given only for the use ofrhamnolipids against house flies, cockroaches, and nematodes, and alsoagainst existing fungal spores on squash. The use concentration of thebiological wetting agent, in this case a rhamnolipid, was very high inthe case of herbicides, at 5% by weight in the spray solution. Even cropprotection active ingredients are not used at such a high applicationconcentration. Usually (although there are other applicationconcentrations) about 1 l/ha of crop protection formulation (containingnot more than 500 g/l of active ingredient) is used with a waterquantity of about 250 l/ha. This corresponds to a maximum concentrationof about 0.4% by weight. Information on the controlled and/or selectivecontrol of pests with practically-relevant activity, and also on thepreventive effect, in other words protective effect, however, is notgiven in the US patent application cited above.

“Protective” means that the pesticide/adjuvant combination is applied tothe target organism when the disease or the pest organism has not yetappeared (i.e., protective delivery before the appearance of pests ordiseases). Protective applications are important for fungicidesespecially, but also for insecticides and acaricides.

US 2005/0266036 A1 does not reveal whether rhamnolipids also boost theefficacy of herbicides if they are used at a selective dose (i.e., as anadjuvant). Selective doses are those at which the glycolipid itselfproduces no control (damage) of the pest organism (such as weed, insect,fungus or suchlike pest organism).

The application US2005/0266036 describes how the biosurfactants usedtherein, especially rhamnolipids, display a pesticidal activity onaccount of their cell wall penetration effect. Penetration promoters ofthis kind are in fact often necessary for crop protection products, inorder to control a pest organism which is already present within theplant tissue, this being referred to as curative effect.

The patent application cited above, however, does not indicate in anyway, and nor is it evident, that glycolipids, if they were to becombined with crop protection products, would also act protectively oreven substantially improve the efficacy of said products. In the cropprotection sector, contact agents such as the fungicide sulfur, forexample, are usually used for protective defense. These activeingredients, however, act only via contact—in other words, the pestsmust be struck. For curative protection, in contrast, active ingredientswith a systemic effect are usually used, such as, for example,rimsulfuron (from the group of the sulfonylureas) or epoxiconazole (fromthe group of the triazole fungicides). This kind of active ingredientsis taken up by the plant and transported in the plant sap. Pests feed onor suck from plants, and so consume the product.

Synergism here is understood to mean that the effect of the combinationof pesticide and adjuvant is greater than the anticipated effect of thetwo individual components (see Colby formula: Colby S. R. 1967.Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicidecombinations. Weeds 15:20-22). Of such a synergistic effect in theinteraction of pesticide and sophorolipids there is no evidence to befound in the prior art.

In crop protection, in pest control and in the industrial sector,chemical or biological crop protection products (also called pesticidesbelow) or pesticide mixtures are employed. These may be, for example,herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, growth regulators, molluscicides,bactericides, viricides, micronutrients, and also biological cropprotection agents based on natural substances or living or processed orengineered microorganisms. Active pesticidal ingredients are listed inconjunction with their areas of use, for example, in ‘The PesticideManual’, 14^(th) edition, 2006, The British Crop Protection Council;active biological ingredients are given, for example, in ‘The Manual ofBiocontrol Agents’, 2001, The British Crop Protection Council. Pesticidebelow is always used as a collective term. As tank mix additives it iscommon to use alkoxylated trisiloxane surfactants, which lower thestatic surface tension of spray solution or water to a significantlygreater degree than do organic surfactants used in the past, such asnonylphenol ethoxylates, for example. Trisiloxane surfactants have thegeneral structure Me₃SiO—SiMeR-OSiMe₃, where the radical R represents apolyether radical. The use of superspreading trisiloxane surfactants,such as BREAK-THRU® S-240, Evonik Goldschmidt GmbH, for example, incombination with a pesticide leads to an improvement in the uptake ofpesticide by the plant and, generally, to an increase in its activity orits efficacy. U.S. Pat. No. 6,734,141 describes how for this efficacyboost it is specifically a low surface tension and not necessarily thespreading that is responsible. In the majority of patents, the term“surface tension” always refers to the static surface tension. In thecase of trisiloxanes, for example, the static surface tension is about20 to 25 mN/m.

In numerous countries, however, trisiloxane surfactants are classed asharmful to health, and in the context of registration as an ingredientof crop protection products this is considered to be a criterion forexclusion. Numerous tank mix additives, especially ethoxylated alcoholsor alkylpolyglycosides, cause severe foaming in spray solution onstirred incorporation, and this foaming may possibly lead to problems inthe field on application. Generally, synthetic wetting agents must, inorder to obtain registration as adjuvants before the nationalauthorities, be shown not to give rise to any residues in the soil. Thisresidue problem, which in the majority of countries exists only foractive pesticidal ingredients, is being applied more and more totraditional adjuvants as well. Biological wetting agents, beingbiodegradable, would not be affected by this problem, and thisrepresents a strong advantage for this application. Glycolipids areunderstood to be a class of chemical compounds which are composed of ahydrophilic carbohydrate moiety and a hydrophobic lipid moiety and whichon account of their amphiphilic nature have interface-active orsurfactant properties and are therefore also referred to asbiosurfactants. Oftentimes they are hydroxylated fatty acids which arelinked by a glycosidic bond to a sugar residue. This class of compoundalso includes products of microbial metabolism. Examples of such arerhamnolipids (RL), sophorolipids (SL) and mannosylerythritol lipids(MEL), synthesized respectively by bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonasaeruginosa), yeasts (e.g., Candida bombicola), or yeasts and higherfungi (e.g., Candida antarctica and Pseudozyma aphidis).

The biotechnology synthesis of such compounds has been known for someconsiderable time already, and suitable strains and fermentationconditions have undergone in-depth investigation (e.g., Mukherjee, S. etal.—2006, Towards commercial production of biosurfactants, Trends inBiotechnology, Vol. 24, No. 11). In recent times, however, there hasbeen a sharp increase in interest in this class of compound, as part ofthe sustainability debate, since they can be produced under gentleconditions from renewable raw materials.

For this purpose, in principle, the microorganism in question issupplied with a metabolizable carbohydrate (e.g., a monosaccharide or adisaccharide) as hydrophilic substrate, and, as hydrophobic substrate, ahydrocarbon, fatty alcohol, a fatty acid, a triglyceride orcorresponding mixtures, which are converted by said microorganism intothe corresponding target compound. In this context, the origin of thetwo substrates may vary greatly, since required elements of the targetmolecule can if necessary also be synthesized through the metabolism ofthe microorganism, thereby opening access to a very broad spectrum ofcarbohydrate or hydrocarbon sources (K. Muthusamy et al. —2008,Properties, commercial production and applications, Current Science,Vol. 94, No. 6, pp. 736-747). Examples of possible hydrophobicsubstrates are longer-chain hydrocarbons, plant or animal oils, freefatty acids or fatty acid derivatives (cf. EP 1 953 237 A1, esters ofdifferent chain lengths, etc.), and also fatty alcohols. The hydrophiliccarbon source usually used is glucose, though depending on the organismemployed other sugars as well, such as lactose and sucrose, for example,are also accepted (van Bogaert et al. —2006, Microbial production andapplication of sophorolipids, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,Vol. 76).

Another possibility for structural diversification and associatedexpansion of the functional properties is the subsequent chemical orbiochemical modification of the microbially generated glycolipids. Forthis as well, various methods have been described, as for example in US2007/027106-A1—Charged Sophorolipids and sophorolipid containingcompounds, or in US 2005/164955A1-Antifungal properties of various formsof sophorolipids, or in Bisht, K. S. et al. —1999, Enzyme-mediatedregioselective acylation of SLs, The journal of organic chemistry, 64,pp. 780-789; Azim, A. et al. —2006, Amino acid conjugated sophorolipids,Bioconjugate Chemistry, 17, pp. 1523-1529). One simple method, forexample, is the base-catalyzed hydrolysis or esterification withaliphatic alcohols of various chain lengths. One interesting method ofpreparing sophorolipids having short hydrophobic radicals was recentlypublished likewise in EP 1 953 237 A1. The hydrophobic substratesupplied as feed in this case comprises fatty acid analogs whichcontain, for example, amide bonds, ester bonds or double bonds and canbe subsequently cleaved chemically, by hydrolysis or ozonolysis, inorder to obtain shorter-chain hydrophobic radicals.

Reducing the water content in crude sophorolipid products, bydistillation, for example, leads to technical problems duringprocessing, since the products become very high in viscosity. Thisproblem has been solved by the addition of volatile polyols which areviscosity-reducing even at low concentration; see U.S. Pat. No.4,197,166—Dehydrating purification process for a fermentation product.

Within the technical literature, glycolipids, in the form of therepresentatives rhamnolipids, trehalose lipids, and sophorolipids, havebeen disclosed as biological surfactants (Desai JD and Banat IM.Microbial Production of Surfactants and their Commercial Potential.Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, March 1997, pp. 47-64). Theyare used, for example, for soil remediation (see Master Thesis ÖzlemZenginyürrek, Izmir 2002, Izmir Institute of Technology: Title: Effectsof biosurfactants on remediation of soils contaminated with pesticides;or Food Technology and Biotechnology (2001), 39 (4), 295-304). Thesepublications also describe the breakdown of pesticides, such as ofendosulfan or metalachlor, in soils. In these cases, the biologicalwetting agents are applied directly to the soil. In the literature andalso in patents, rhamnolipids are mostly associated with biologicalwetting agents. These rhamnolipids, however, are labeled as hazardous tohealth, and according to safety data sheets can cause serious eyedamage.

The trend within the agro sector is increasingly toward lesstoxicologically objectionable additives and adjuvants.

Moreover, the preparation of rhamnolipids is hindered by severe foamformation in the course of their fermentative production, and efficientbiotechnological production has to date been realizable only withpotentially pathogenic strains of the genus Pseudomonas. In the contextof this invention, therefore, rhamnolipids have not been pursued anyfurther. MEL (Mannosyl Erythritol Lipids) are further lipids which wouldbe contemplated as adjuvants. Since, however, they are very hydrophobicin terms of the molecule, and can therefore be dispersed only withdifficulty, if at all, in water, their applicability would be limited tooil-based formulations, since a prerequisite for use as a tank mixadditive is that molecules are water-soluble. MELs could therefore beused preferably only in combination with co-surfactants.PCT/US2005/046426 (WO2006/069175) describes sophorolipids for use asantifungal agents, but not in connection with crop protection ornon-crop applications. The antifungal agent quality is utilized in thecosmetics segment and in medicine (K. Kim et al. —Journal ofMicrobiology and Biotechnology (2002), 12(2), 235-241). In the cosmeticssegment, biological wetting agents are usually used as emulsifiers foroil-in-water emulsions (I. van Bogaert et al.; Appl. MicrobiolBiotechnology (2007) 76: pp. 23-34). van Bogaert et al. also report onthe commercial use of biological wetting agents, especiallysophorolipids, in household cleaning products.

Crop protection product formulations, which for use are usually dilutedwith water prior to the customary delivery by spraying via nozzles,comprise not only the active pesticidal component or treatment component(called active substance or else active ingredient) but also otherauxiliary agents, such as emulsifiers, thickeners, dispersing aids,antifreeze agents, defoamers, biocides and/or surface-active substances,for example; the skilled formulator is familiar with such substances.

The type of formulation is influenced by the crop plant, the area ofcultivation, and the user. On account of the diversity ofphysicochemical properties among the different active pesticidalingredients, there exists on the market a large number of both liquidand solid formulation types. The formulation additives, especially theadjuvant, give rise to particular application properties such asretention, penetration, rain resistance, and spreading behavior. Aspecific formulation is intended to ensure that the smallest possibleamount of active ingredient can be distributed uniformly over a largearea (reducing the application rates to protect the consumer and theenvironment), but while continuing to ensure maximum performance andactivity. Widespread types of formulation, listed only by way of examplehere, are as follows: suspension concentrates, capsule suspensions,emulsifiable concentrates, water-soluble concentrates, oil dispersions,suspoemulsions, emulsions in water, water-dispersible granules orpowders. The possible types and varieties of formulation are not to belimited to those described here.

Active ingredients of these kinds are often added to a tank containingwater in order to dilute the concentrated formulation of the activeingredient prior to spray delivery, and to make it compatible with theplants. Tank mix additives (also called added substances or adjuvants)are added to the water in the same tank separately before or after theactive ingredient formulation, and are distributed by stirring with theentire system referred to as the spray solution.

Active ingredients (active substances) are substances which within theindividual countries are approved and/or registered for application toplants and crops, and/or are listed for protecting plants from damage,or in order to avoid loss of yield in a crop or to reduce such loss.Such active ingredients or substances may be synthetic or elsebiological in type. Such active ingredients may also be extracts ornatural substances, or organisms with an antagonistic action. They arecommonly also referred to as pesticides. In the present invention here,the nature of the active ingredient is not important, since the tank mixadditive utility is of general nature and is not specific to the activeingredient. The pesticides, which are named in crop protection accordingto their area of application, include, for example, the followingclasses: acaricides (AC), algicides (AL), attractants (AT), repellents(RE), bactericides (BA), fungicides (FU), herbicides (HE), insecticides(IN), molluscicides (MO), nematicides (NE), rodenticides (RO),sterilizers (ST), viricides (VI), growth regulators (PG), plantstrengtheners (PS), micronutrients (MI), and macronutrients (MA). Thesedesignations and the areas of application are familiar to the skilledperson. Active ingredients are used alone or in combinations with otheractive ingredients. Preferred pesticides are HB, FU, IN, PG, MI, andparticularly HB, FU, IN. In commerce, such active ingredients orsubstances are mostly sold generally in formulated form, since only insuch a form can they be used by the user and, following their dilution,usually with water, can be delivered.

Some active ingredients or active organisms are listed by way of examplein ‘The Pesticide Manual’, 14^(th) edition, 2006, The British CropProtection Council, or in ‘The Manual of Biocontrol Agents’, 2004, TheBritish Crop Protection Council. The present specification, however, isconfined not only to these active ingredients listed there, but alsoincludes more modern active ingredients not yet cited in theaforementioned monograph. No listing will be given here of theindividual active ingredients or of formulations of these activeingredients, or of active ingredient combinations with one another orbetween one another.

Products with natural substance character, or biological products, arealso listed in one of the publications cited above. Plant nutrients andplant micronutrients, which are delivered in liquid form in a liquidpreparation in any of the wide variety of forms, alone or in combinationwith other nutrients, or in combination with crop protection products,include, for example, nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, calcium,magnesium, manganese, boron, copper, iron, selenium, cobalt, and others,which are referred to as micronutrients.

There is a need for biological substances which are toxicologicallyunobjectionable, are not environmentally hazardous according to ECDirective 1907/2006, greatly lower the surface tension of water, arewater-soluble or dispersible, and can be used as a tank mix additive andalso as a formulating auxiliary in order to promote selective activityin pesticides. Toxicologically unobjectionable in the context of thisinvention means that the desired biological substances are, for example,biodegradable, have no negative (i.e., >10 mg/l) toxicity for fish,daphnia and/or algae, and do not cause eye irritation to the user.Preferred use concentrations in the tank mix sector lie between 0.001-3%by volume, preferably 0.01-0.5% by volume, and more preferably below0.1% by volume (corresponding also to about 0.1% by weight) of the spraysolution. This is synonymous with 10-3000 ml/ha, when typically 100 to1000 l of spray solution per hectare are delivered, and preferably anadjuvant amount of 50-700 ml/ha, which are also added by the respectivespray solution quantities independently of the total water applicationrate per hectare. As a formulating auxiliary, this concentration must becalculated back to the crop protection product concentrate and itsapplication rate. The aforementioned quantity of adjuvant corresponds tothe use concentration on the field.

It is an object of the present specification, therefore, to findtoxicologically unobjectionable adjuvants which boost the efficacy ofpesticides.

The object is achieved through the use of adjuvants/additives based onsophorolipids.

The present invention accordingly provides for the use of adjuvantscomprising sophorolipids, sophorolipid preparations, and derivativesthereof, as a tank mix additive themselves, or as a formulatingadditive, as an emulsifier, dispersant, defoamer, or generally, as awetting agent, in each case with the function of the adjuvant, for cropprotection and/or for the industrial non-crop sector. As derivatives itis possible with preference to use sophorolipid esters.

The adjuvants of the invention comprising sophorolipids preferably boostthe action of pesticides and/or enhance the activity, preferably by morethan 10% relative to use without the sophorolipids and theirpreparations or derivatives, with the proviso that the dose range of theadjuvant lies between 10-3000 ml/ha, preferably between 30-1000 ml/ha,and more preferably between 50-700 ml/ha.

Preference is given to using pesticides and/or fungicides in the senseof crop protection products and industrial pest-control compositions,selected for example from the group of the herbicides, insecticidesand/or growth regulators or mixtures thereof or plant strengtheners,micronutrients and macronutrients, especially when the combinations ofpesticide and adjuvant are employed protectively. Particular preferencehere is given to the use of the sophorolipids in pesticide applicationsas a tank mix additive or formulating auxiliary. In these cases theadjuvants ought to cause little foaming and hence to develop less than80 ml of foam after 30 seconds in accordance with CIPAC Method MT 47,and/or to induce no eye irritation for the user, and/or to lower thesurface tension of water to levels of less than 40 mN/m, based on a 0.1%strength by weight aqueous solution of the adjuvant.

A synergistic effect of the adjuvant together with the pesticide ispreferred. The efficacy of the pesticidal activity of these preferredcompositions of the invention is higher than the efficacy of thepesticide or of the adjuvant alone, or their additive effect, and in onepreferred embodiment the adjuvant alone has no pesticidal activityitself in the use concentration range. This synergistic effect occurspreferably in a concentration range and in a ratio of active pesticidalingredient to adjuvant of 1:120 to 30:1, preferably 1:100 to 20:1, verypreferably 1:75 to 4:1. This concentration range relates to the use astank mix additive and as formulating additive.

As pesticides it is preferred to use herbicides and/or fungicides andmixtures thereof. Particularly preferred are herbicides or fungicides,more preferably contact fungicides such as sulfur, for example, and/orelse systemic fungicides from the class of the triazoles, and/orsystemic herbicides from the group of the sulfonylureas, and alsomixtures of these and other pesticides.

In one preferred embodiment the adjuvants/additives can be used togetherwith other co-surfactants, examples being carboxylic acids. Carboxylicacids used are preferably alkanoic acids having a straight, saturatedalkyl chain of 6 to 10 carbon atoms, or preferably octanoic acid(caprylic acid), nonanoic acid, decanoic acid (capric acid), oleic acidor mixtures thereof.

The adjuvants can be used as additives in pesticide formulations, suchas, for example, suspension concentrates, capsule suspensions,emulsifiable concentrates, water-soluble concentrates, oil dispersions,suspoemulsions, emulsions in water, water-dispersible granules orpowders, alongside other added substances, such as, for example,dispersants, emulsifiers, thickeners, and defoamers, with an adjuvantcontent of 1% by weight to 99% by weight, preferably in the range from1.5% by weight to 60% by weight, and more preferably from 1.9% to 30% byweight.

Additionally provided by the invention are compositions which comprisesophorolipids and at least one active pesticidal ingredient, and in onepreferred embodiment the sophorolipid itself exerts no inherentpesticidal effect.

The invention additionally provides compositions comprisingsophorolipids and active pesticidal ingredients, the pesticidal efficacyand activity of the composition being greater than the sum of theefficacies of the individual components. The efficacy here is relativeboth to the total amount and to the relative ratios. An optimum efficacyis obtained at a ratio of active pesticidal ingredient to adjuvant of1:100 to 20:1, preferably 1:75 to 4:1.

The compositions that are provided by the invention comprisesophorolipids, which can be prepared by fermentative processes. Owing tothe heterogeneous composition of the reactants (e.g., mixtures of fattyacids), and the restricted selectivity of the microbial biosynthesisapparatus, the substances are present not as pure compounds but insteadas natural mixtures.

The sophorolipids, according to the provisions of this invention, aretherefore understood to include sophorolipid preparations andcompositions which following fermentative preparation can be usedwithout further purification and employed.

The sophorolipids according to this definition, and the sophorolipidpreparations, may therefore comprise, for example, reactants from thefermentation process, such as fatty acids and carbohydrates, forexample, which have served as substrates for the microorganisms, andalso, for example, water and other natural impurities, especiallyorganic impurities. Certain sophorolipid forms are not pH-stable. Underbase catalysis, for example, therefore, there may be a deacetylation ora lactone opening, with formation of the analogous acid form.

One preferred embodiment of the invention uses sophorolipids andderivatives thereof, and also sophorolipid preparations, as aconstituent of adjuvants/additives in crop protection and/or in thenon-crop sector.

Based on solids, the sophorolipids are present in a purity of >30% byweight, preferably >65% by weight (m/m), more preferably >80% by weight(m/m). The adjuvants may comprise to an extent of 1% to 100% by weightthe sophorolipids themselves, their derivatives, or sophorolipidpreparations. The amount of the sophorolipids, derivatives thereof orthe sophorolipid preparations in the adjuvant, based on solids, ispreferably greater than 30% by weight, and more particularly greaterthan 60% by weight.

As the hydrophobic substrate in the fermentative preparation it ispossible to use hydrocarbons, fatty acids, fatty acid esters and/orfatty alcohols, preference being given to the use of triglycerides suchas, for example, tallow, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil, safflower oil,soyabean oil, palm oil, palm kernel oil, coconut oil, and olive oil, ormixtures thereof, besides the hydrophilic substrate.

The sophorolipid fraction in the adjuvant may, in purified or unpurifiedform, alternatively:

-   i) be present as a mixture of lactone and acid form, with an acid    fraction of 10% to 100% by weight, preferably <60% by weight, more    preferably <20% by weight, or-   ii) consist to a fraction of >90% by weight of the lactone form,    which can be solubilized by adjustment of the pH to a level between    6 and 8, or-   iii) be present as methyl ester or ethyl ester, with a fraction of    1% to 100% by weight, preferably >50% by weight, and more    particularly >90% by weight (m/m) of the respective ester.

Surprisingly it has been found that the lactone form of thesophorolipids can also be solubilized at a pH of 6-8 by fatty acidsstill present from the fermentation or by fatty acids addedadditionally.

It is particularly surprising that in this case clear systems wereobtained, since at a pH of 6 neither the lactone form of thesophorolipid nor the fatty acid on their own are “soluble” with clarity.Only the combination of lactone form and fatty acid is “soluble” withclarity. “Soluble” with clarity here means that an at least apparenttrue solution is obtained, which may also be present, however, in theform of a fine emulsion. The characteristic feature at any rate is thatthe emulsion that may be present does not break down into individualphases again.

The invention accordingly further provides a process for preparing asolubilized lactone form of the sophorolipids by bringing the lactoneform into solution through the presence of fatty acids, by adjustment ofthe pH to 6-8, and also provides the solutions or emulsions prepared inthis way. The pH may be adjusted by adding inorganic alkalis such assodium hydroxide solution, for example, or by further addition of fattyacid, depending on whether the pH is to be raised or else lowered.

Suitable fatty acids include the fatty acids that have not undergonecomplete reaction during the fermentation, and/or may be addedadditionally. The fatty acids correspond to the acid components of thetriglycerides used as substrates, selected from the group consisting oftallow, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil, safflower oil, soyabean oil, palmoil, palm kernel oil, coconut oil, and olive oil, or else short-chain tomedium-chain carboxylic acids having an alkyl chain length of 6 to 22carbon atoms. Preferred examples of fatty acids already present or elseadded are nonanoic acid (pelargonic acid), decanoic acid (capric acid),dodecanoic acid (lauric acid), tetradecanoic acid (myristic acid),hexadecanoic acid (palmitic acid), octadecanoic acid (stearic acid),octadecaenoic acid (oleic acid) or mixtures thereof.

In one preferred embodiment the sophorolipid-containing adjuvant in a0.1% by weight aqueous solution has a surface tension of <40 mN/m.

Besides the sophorolipid and any organic and inorganic solvents,preferably water, the adjuvant may comprise further added substancesknown to the skilled person.

The sophorolipids may also be admixed with organic acids or oils,preferably those specified above, and the mixtures obtained can then beused as mixture constituents of tank mix additives.

The invention further provides for the use of sophorolipids in cropprotection product formulations, in each case with the function asemulsifier, dispersant, defoamer or, generally, as wetting agent.

One particularly preferred embodiment of the present invention usessophorolipid preparations which comprise sophorolipids of the formula 1or 1a,

where

-   R¹ and R² independently of one another are either H or an acetyl    group,-   R³ is H or a methyl, ethyl or hexyl group,-   R⁴ independently at each occurrence is a saturated or unsaturated    divalent, branched or unbranched organic group, preferably a    hydrocarbon group having 1-28 carbon atoms which may optionally be    interrupted by amine, ester, amide or thioester groups and also is    preferably at least monounsaturated,-   R⁵ is H or a methyl group,    with the proviso that the total number of carbon atoms in the groups    R⁴ and R⁵ does not exceed the number 29 and preferably is 12 to 20    and more particularly is 14 to 16.

The organic group R⁴ may be a carbon chain which may optionally beinterrupted by heteroatoms such as N, S, and O and hence may also beinterrupted by amine, ether, ester, amide or thioester groups.

Additional subject matter provided by the invention is described by theclaims, whose disclosure content in its full extent is part of thisdescription.

In the examples set out below, the present invention is described by wayof example; the invention, whose breadth of application is evident fromthe entire description and from the claims, cannot be read as beingconfined to the embodiments specified in the examples.

Where reference is made below to ranges, numerical values, generalformulae or classes of compound, they should be taken to encompass notonly the corresponding ranges or groups of compounds that are explicitlymentioned, but also all subranges and numerical values and subgroups ofcompounds that may be obtained by extracting individual values (ranges)or compounds.

EXAMPLES Materials Investigated

The sophorolipids looked at can be described by general formula 1 and/or1a.

The crude product was prepared by means of fermentation with the yeastCandida bombicola on the basis of the substrates glucose, sunflower oil,rapeseed oil or olive oil (comprising primarily oleic acid as fatty acidfraction).

The growth medium contained the following constituents:

-   -   10 g/l glucose ((D)+glucose*1H₂O)    -   7.5 g/l YNB (Yeast Nitrogen Base)    -   2 g/l yeast extract

1.1 l of the medium were autoclaved in a fermenter with a capacity of 2l and were seeded with an exponential-phase preculture from the samemedium. The temperature was set to 30° C. The pO₂ was maintained at 30%relative saturation by admission of air via the stirrer speed, but thestirrer speed was never lower than 200 rpm. During the biomass formationphase, the pH fell to 3.5 and was maintained at this level by additionof NaOH. After the end of the biomass formation phase (consumption ofthe glucose present, marked by the rise in pO₂ or drop in pCO₂), theproduct formation phase was initiated by addition of 150 g of thecorresponding oil, 200 ml of a 750 g/l glucose solution, and 10 ml of a150 g/l yeast extract solution. The end of the product formation phasewas marked by a renewed rise in pO₂. After the end of fermentation, thebatch was autoclaved, with the crude product phase depositing assediment. The crude product phase was washed with water and then withhexane. The product phase was subsequently extracted with ethyl acetateand then the solvent was removed under reduced pressure. This gave alargely water-free product, corresponding to the dry mass of theinvention. Analysis by means of HPLC-MS and NMR showed that the productis composed largely of the diacetylated sophorolipid lactone form withglycosidically linked fatty acid (main constituents: sophorolipidlactone 65-80% by weight, fatty acid 1-16% by weight, glycerol 1-3% byweight).

TABLE 1 Overview of adjuvants investigated SLL Sophorolipid = Dry mass(solid) SLM Sophorolipid methyl ester (solid) SLS Sophorolipid acid form(solid) SLL-SLS Sophorolipid lactone form in mixture with acid form, 50%in water SLLF Mixture of 30% SLL + 30% H2O + 20% nonanoic acid + 20%propylene glycol

Standard adjuvant as comparative substance: BREAK-THRU® S 240(alkoxylated trisiloxane from Evonik Goldschmidt GmbH)

Table 1 lists various derivatives of the fermentatively preparedsophorolipid SLL, which were tested later on in glasshouse trials.

The course of the derivatization steps was confirmed by NMR analysis.

SLL:

The SLL corresponds to the dry mass of the fermentation process andforms a solid whose sophorolipid content is >80% by weight and which ispresent primarily in the lactone form of the sophorolipid (>90% byweight).

SLM:

For the synthesis of the methyl ester and ethyl ester, SLL was dissolvedin methanol or ethanol as solvent, and subjected to transesterificationat a temperature of 60° C. for 3 hours by addition of NaOCH₃ orNaOCH₂CH₃ (pH=12). The solvent was then removed under reduced pressure.This gave a slightly viscous product which could be processed byfreezing and subsequent grinding to a powder having a water solubilityof >50% by weight (m/m).

SLS:

A 60% by weight aqueous suspension of the sophorolipid SLL was admixedwith 5% by weight of solid NaOH pellets. The mixture was then stirred ata temperature of 50° C. for 30 minutes in order to give, by hydrolysis,the deacetylated acid form of the sophorolipid. The batch was thenadjusted to a pH of 3 by addition of HCl, and the product was extractedwith ethyl acetate. Removal of the ethyl acetate gave a residue whichcan be ground to a powder and which has a water solubility of >50% byweight.

SLL-SLS:

In this case, the procedure was as for SLS, but with the addition ofonly 1/10 of the NaOH, leading only to partial hydrolysis of the lactoneform. This hybrid form was prepared with water to form a solution havinga content of about 50% by weight.

Physical Properties: a) Foam Behavior and Surface Tension:

For the parent structures, the foam behavior (by CIPAC Method MT 47) andthe static surface tension were measured in 0.1% strength by weightaqueous solutions (on the sophorolipid preparation as present inadjuvant form). The surface tension of the 0.1% strength by weightsolutions was measured by means of a bubble pressure tensiometer fromSITA Messtechnik GmbH, instrument: Sita online t 60; SITA online Version2.0. The bubble dwell time of the static surface tension is 30 ms. Themeasurement deviation is about 0.4%-1% of the reported mN/m figures. Themeasurements were carried out at an ambient temperature of 22° C. Thefigures shown are average values from three measurements.

According to CIPAC Definition, products which are “nonfoaming” areproducts which generate only a foam of 5 ml in the volumetric flask withthe method indicated. Low-foaming products are then defined here asthose which exhibit values of <80 ml after 30 seconds.

b) Spreading Measurements:

The spreading properties were determined using a pipette and a biaxiallyoriented polypropylene film (FORCO OPPB AT-OPAL from 4P Folie Forchheimin Germany). One drop of an aqueous solution containing 0.1% by weightof the adjuvant, with a volume of 50 microliters, was applied to thefilm. The diameter of the drop was measured after one minute. If thedrop did not spread circularly, the average value of the longest andshortest axes was calculated. The measurements were carried out in anacclimatized laboratory at 21.5° C. and 60% relative atmospherichumidity.

TABLE 2 Physical properties of inventive adjuvants/additives relative tothe synthetic trisiloxane BREAK-THRU ® S240 SLL-SLS BREAK- 50% by THRU ®weight S 240* SLM SLS in water SLL Static surface 21.1 38.6 39.5 39.835.2 tension [mN/m] Foam in ml (after 220 80 80 70 60 30 seconds)Spreading [mm] 70 8 9 8 10 *= Comparative substance - Organicallymodified trisiloxaneEvaluation of the Results from Table 2:

Surprisingly, only a low level of spreading is perceptible for thecompositions of the invention, relative to the comparison substanceBREAK-THRU® S240. The formation of foam, however, is significantlyreduced for the inventive formulations.

Performance Testing:

For the use of substances as formulating additives, only thephysical/chemical compatibility with other formulating substances isimportant; however, the biological activity of a substance as adjuvantis always tested first of all on its own, in other words as a tank mixadditive. As a basis for this invention, therefore, the confirmation ofthe biological activity is determined by means of tank mix trials in theglasshouse. Described below are glasshouse trials which serve fordetermining the improvement in biological action of pesticides withadded adjuvants in crop protection. From among the large number ofpesticides, the fungicides epoxiconazole and sulfur and the herbiciderimsulfuron were selected as examples here. In order to discover thesynergism of the adjuvant, the trials below were conducted (see tables5-7)

-   -   a) Adjuvant without addition of pesticide    -   b) Pesticide use alone    -   c) Pesticide plus adjuvant.

In order to be able to evaluate synergism, the results of c ought to bebetter than the sum of a and b; see also Colby formula.

In the trials set out in tables 3 and 4, only the influence of differentadjuvants on the efficacy of the pesticides was tested.

Trial Setup for the Curative Trials:

In a glasshouse, the barley variety “Ingrid” (three plants per pot) wassown in “Frustosol” plant growth medium. Three weeks later, the leavesof the plants, measuring about 10-15 cm in length, were inoculated withfresh conidia of the mildew fungus Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei (raceA6) by means of an inoculating tower. Two days after this, they weresprayed with a spray solution containing the fungicide Opus® (125 g/lepoxiconazole) from BASF. The skilled person knows such trials ascurative trials. The amount of spraying water corresponded to 250 l/ha.The dose of the fungicide was 10 ml/ha. The doses of the adjuvantsvaried between 50-125 ml (or g)/ha. In the case of water-dilutedadjuvants/additives (such as the SLL-SLS), the dose is based on theactive ingredient content. This quantity corresponded to about0.0025%-0.5% by weight of the adjuvant/additive in the spray solution,which is comparable with standard adjuvants such as, for example,BREAK-THRU® S240.

Table 3 shows results of comparison between BREAK-THRU® S240 and thesophorolipid SLL at the same concentrations. Here it is seen that thedose ought to be between 50-100 ml/ha, and that a concentration of theSLLs of greater than 50 g/ha does not produce any boost in action. Sinceno experience was available concerning an optimum dose of thesophorolipid, 75 ml/ha or 75 g a.i. (active ingredient)/ha weretherefore taken as a basis for further tests for the sophorolipidpreparations and derivatives thereof (see tables 5-7). In certain cases,the adjuvants/additives were also sprayed without fungicide, in order toexamine whether the adjuvants/additives alone would display a biologicalaction. When the spraying film had dried, leaf cm long were cut from thetreated plants and also from completely untreated plants, and for eachvariant 15 leaves were placed separately on benzimidazole agar in Petridishes (0.5% agar, to which, after sterilization, 40 ppm ofbenzimidazole were added). After an incubation period of 14 days at roomtemperature, the infection of the leaves with mildew was investigated byestimating the proportion of infected leaf area. This trial setup isfamiliar to the skilled person.

The activity of the adjuvant alone, of the pesticide alone (i.e., of thefungicides or herbicides), and of the pesticide/adjuvant combination wascalculated, in a manner known to the skilled person, in comparison to anuntreated control sample, which was nevertheless inoculated with themildew fungus, and expressed in % control of the disease.

Experimental Arrangement for the Protective Trials:

The plants (barley) were cultivated under glass in exactly the same wayas in the curative trial. For the protective trials, however, the plantswere sprayed at about three weeks old with spray solutions containingthe active fungicidal ingredient sulfur (Microthiol WG 80% sulfur fromStahler), either alone or in combination with adjuvants/additives.Furthermore, in order to test for synergy, the adjuvant was applied inthe spray solution alone, in other words without sulfur. The sulfur dosewas 1000 ppm/l, while the adjuvants were used in different doses (fordoses see results tables). The amount of spray solution was 250 l/ha,and so the adjuvant concentration in the spray solution was not morethan 0.1%; the sulfur dose was 250 g/ha. After the spray solutions haddried on, leaf segments with a length of 8 cm were cut from the treatedplants and also from entirely untreated plants, and for each variant 15leaves were placed separately on benzimidazole agar in Petri dishes(0.5% agar, to which, after sterilization, 40 ppm of benzimidazole wereadded). The next day the plants were inoculated with fresh conidia ofthe mildew fungus Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei (race A6) by means ofan inoculation tower. An experimental arrangement of this kind is knownto the skilled person as a protective trial, since the plants have beenprotected by fungicide prior to inoculation with the fungi. After anincubation period of 10 days at room temperature, the infection of theleaves with mildew was investigated by estimating the fraction ofinfected leaf area. This experimental setup is familiar to the skilledperson.

The activity of the adjuvant alone, of the pesticide alone (i.e., of thefungicides or herbicides), and of the pesticide/adjuvant combination wascalculated, in a manner known to the skilled person, in comparison to anuntreated control sample, which was nevertheless inoculated with themildew fungus, and expressed in % control of the disease.

Trials for Determining the Improvement in Biological Action of aHerbicide:

Under glass, blue grass (Poa pratense) was cultivated in pots. As soonas the plants had reached a height of about 5-7 cm, they were sprayedwith spray solution containing the herbicide Cato® (DuPont, with 500g/kg rimsulfuron). The amount of spraying water corresponded to 200l/ha. This trial was also carried out in other versions, in which thespray solution contained various adjuvants as well as Cato®. For eachelement of the trial, three pots were treated identically, forreproducibility. The dose of the pesticide was 10 g/ha. As a commercialstandard adjuvant, the trisiloxane BREAK-THRU® S240 from EvonikGoldschmidt GmbH was added at 50 and 100 ml/ha to the tank. The dose ofthe sophorolipids was between 50-250 ml or g/ha, meaning that the useconcentration in the spray solution varied from 0.025% to 0.1% byweight. This was done intentionally in order to discover the optimum useconcentration. Table 3 shows comparative results between the BREAK-THRU®S240 and the sophorolipid SLL at identical concentrations. Here it isseen that the dose ought to be between 50-100 ml/ha and that aconcentration of the SLLs of greater than 50 g/ha produces no boost inaction. In the absence of experience concerning optimum dose of thesophorolipid, 75 ml/ha or 75 g a.i. (active ingredient)/ha was used as abasis for further tests with the sophorolipid preparations andderivatives thereof (see tables 5-7). Since the dose is alwayscalculated on the amount of active ingredient, mostly 150 ml/ha is usedfor SLL-SLS, corresponding to 75 ml or g/ha of the SLL. Accordingly, thevarious sophorolipid preparation adjuvants are comparable with oneanother. In the case of the SLLF, this active ingredient concentrationis achieved only when 250 ml/ha of the adjuvant is used. The effect ofthe treatments was scored 14, 20 or 30 days after application, by themethods known to the skilled person. Here, the damage to the plants as aresult of the herbicide treatment is compared with untreated plants, andthe activity of the spray treatment is expressed in relation to theuntreated plants. The activity was determined on each of the three potsper trial. The average value was calculated and reported as percentageof efficacy in the results tables.

TABLE 3 Comparison of the boost in efficacy of different adjuvants onfungicides (14 days after application) Fungicide Adjuvant Efficacy at 10ml/ha Adjuvant code dose/ha (%) Opus ® none 0 46% Opus ® BREAK-Thru ®S240 50 ml/ha 91% Opus ® BREAK-Thru ® S240 100 ml/ha 96% Opus ® SLL 50g/ha 99% Opus ® SLL 100 g/ha 98%

TABLE 4 Comparison of the boost in efficacy of different adjuvants onherbicides (30 days after application) Herbicide Wetting agent Wettingagent Efficacy 10 g/ha code dose/ha (%) Cato ® none none 53% Cato ®BREAK-THRU ® S240 50 ml/ha 70% Cato ® BREAK-THRU ® S240 100 ml/ha 80%Cato ® SLL 100 g/ha 60% Cato ® SLL 200 g/ha 73%

In tables 5-7, a dose is selected for the SLLF that makes it possible onthe one hand to compare the adjuvant amount in relation to othersophorolipids (SLM or SLS)—this means the concentration of 125 ml/ha—buton the other hand an increased adjuvant concentration as well, in whichcase then, however, the amount of active sophorolipid ingredient at 75g/ha a.i., is comparable. This means that 250 ml/ha of SLLF can becompared with 75 g/ha of SLM, or 150 ml/ha of the SLL-SLS, which in thiscase likewise contains 75 g/ha a.i.

TABLE 5 Comparison of different adjuvant derivatives and mixtures incurative fungicide trials (14 days after application) Adjuvant EfficacyFungicide Code Adjuvant dose/ha (%) — BREAK- 50 ml/ha  2% THRU ® S240 —SLL-SLS 150 ml/ha =  5% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL — SLLF 250 ml/ha =  6%75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL 10 ml/ha Opus ® none — 38% 10 ml/ha Opus ®BREAK- 50 ml/ha 69% THRU ® S240 10 ml/ha Opus ® SLM 75 g/ha 77% 10 ml/haOpus ® SLM 125 g/ha 67% 10 ml/ha Opus ® SLS 75 g/ha 50% 10 ml/ha Opus ®SLS 125 ml/ha 63% Opus ® SLL-SLS 150 ml/ha = 44% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL10 ml/ha Opus ® SLLF 67.5 ml/ha = 45% 18.7 g/ha a.i. of the SLL 10 ml/haOpus ® SLLF 125 ml/ha = 58% 37.5 g/ha a.i. of the SLL 10 ml/ha Opus ®SLLF 250 ml/ha = 93% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL * a.i. = active ingredient

From table 5 it can be seen that a dose increase in the SLM is notaccompanied by any enhanced activity. This was shown already in table 3.As a result, the dose of the BREAK-THRU® S240 (which in the case of thiscommercial product is prescribed by the approved dose in the label), of50 ml/ha, can indeed be seen as comparable with that of thesophorolipids, of 75 g/ha a.i.

TABLE 6 Comparison of different adjuvant products and mixtures inprotective fungicide trials (10 days after application) AdjuvantEfficacy Fungicide code Adjuvant dose/ha (%) None BREAK- 50 ml/ha  8%THRU ® S240 None SLL-SLS 150 ml/ha =  9% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL NoneSLLF 250 ml/ha =  7% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL Sulfur 250 g/ha none — 46%Sulfur 250 g/ha BREAK- 50 ml/ha 68% THRU ® S240 Sulfur 250 g/ha SLM 75g/ha 99% Sulfur 250 g/ha SLM 125 g/ha 90% Sulfur 250 g/ha SLS 75 g/ha77% Sulfur 250 g/ha SLS 125 ml/ha 77% Sulfur 250 g/ha SLL-SLS 150 ml/ha= 85% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL Sulfur 250 g/ha SLL-SLS 250 ml/ha = 65%125 g/ha a.i. of the SLL Sulfur 250 g/ha SLLF 67.5 ml/ha = 64% 18.7 g/haa.i. of the SLL Sulfur 250 g/ha SLLF 125 ml/ha = 75% 37.5 g/ha a.i. ofthe SLL Sulfur 250 g/ha SLLF 250 ml/ha = 91% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL

TABLE 7 Efficacy boost of different adjuvant products on herbicides (20days after application) Adjuvant Efficacy Herbicide code Adjuvantdose/ha (%) None BREAK 50 ml/ha  0% Thru ® S240 None SLL-SLS 150 ml/ha = 0% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL None SLLF 250 ml/ha =  0% 75 g/ha a.i. ofthe SLL Cato ® 10 g/ha none 73% Cato ® 10 g/ha S240 50 ml/ha 91% Cato ®10 g/ha SLL-SLS 150 ml/ha = 86% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL Cato ® 10 g/haSLLF 250 ml/ha = 88% 75 g/ha a.i. of the SLL

Conclusions:

At selective dosages, the adjuvants/additives tested, especiallysophorolipids, alone or in combination with nonanoic acid asco-surfactant, significantly improve the activity of pesticides,especially fungicides and herbicides, especially in comparison of theirapplication alone and with addition of pesticide (synergism). Where theadjuvants/additives are tested alone—in other words, so to speak, as abiopesticide, as claimed in US 2005/0266036—(tables 5-7), at theselective dosages investigated they have no effect for the control offungal diseases, or for the control or growth regulation of plants (seetable 5: SLL-SLS or SLLF alone gave only an irrelevant 5% or 6% effect,which can come about as a result of fluctuations in experimentalprocedure). From this it can be concluded that the sophorolipids, wherenot used in combination with pesticides, exhibit no pesticidal effect.On the basis of the results listed, synergistic effects can be said toapply between sophorolipids and pesticides, with synergism being alwayspresent when the effect found for the mixture exceeds the sum of theindividual effects. This is the case for the substances underpinning theinvention. See table 6, for example. The sophorolipid SLL-SLS aloneproduced an activity of 9%, the pesticide alone one of 46%, whereas theactivity of the combination, by virtue of the synergism, was 85%.Synergism is normally calculated according to the formula of Colby; seeColby S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses ofherbicide combinations, Weeds 15:20-22.

The Colby formula describes the anticipated effect: Anticipated efficacy(%)=x+y, or, when the sum of the efficacy percentages is >100%,according to the formula:

${{Anticipated}\mspace{14mu} {efficacy}\mspace{14mu} (\%)} = {X + Y - \frac{X \cdot Y}{100}}$

where X is the efficacy (%) of the pesticide alone and Y is the efficacy(%) of the adjuvant alone.

The sophorolipids gave rise to efficacy boosts of pesticides, especiallyfungicides, which are comparable with commercial standards (such asBREAK-THRU® S240), or may be superior to the commercial standard, ofteneven with the same dose (table 3). This is surprising, because thesophorolipids do not, like BREAK-THRU® S240, exhibit a superspreadingeffect or greatly reduce the surface tension.

The application rate of the sophorolipids and/or derivatives thereof is10-3000 ml or grams per hectare, preferably 50-700 ml or g/ha. Thiscorresponds to the application rates of commercially available adjuvantsin agriculture.

All derivatives of sophorolipids are active, though some more so thanothers. For instance, methyl esters of sophorolipids (SLM) are moreactive than NaOH hydrolyzed sophorolipids (SLS), both with contactpesticides (sulfur) and with pesticides having systemic activity(epoxiconazole). The activity of sophorolipids can besuperproportionally boosted in certain cases, where, in binary systems,the efficacy of the pesticide cannot be sufficiently improved, by meansof co-surfactants such as nonanoic acid, for example. Thus thesophorolipid (SLL-SLS) at 75 g a.i./ha active ingredient contentdevelops a small boost in activity achieved together with the systemicfungicide Opus® (table 5) (44% fungicide plus adjuvant as against 38%fungicide alone), but together with nonanoic acid (SLLF), with the sameamount of active sophorolipid ingredient present, i.e., with a dose of250 ml/ha, produces a boost in efficacy to 93%. In a herbicide trial(table 7), the combination of herbicide and sophorolipid/nonanoic acidgave values comparable with those for the sophorolipid alone.

Since these sophorolipids and their derivatives do not possess anyinherent fungicidal or herbicidal efficacy at the dosages used, therecan be said to be synergies between biological surfactants for boostingthe efficacy of pesticides, and the sophorolipids themselves can betermed adjuvant according to the PSD definition.

1.-10. (canceled)
 11. A composition comprising a) at least one of asophorolipid, a sophorolipid preparation, and derivatives thereofobtainable by fermentative preparation, and at least one b) activepesticidal ingredient with the proviso that component (a) has noinherent pesticidal activity.
 12. The composition as claimed in claim 11wherein a pesticidal efficacy and activity of the composition is greaterthan the sum of the efficacies of the individual components.
 13. Thecomposition as claimed in claim 11, wherein component a) is present inan adjuvant, based on the solids, with a fraction of >30% by weight inthe adjuvant.
 14. A composition as claimed in claim 11, whereinfermentative preparation includes a hydrophobic substance selected fromthe group consisting of hydrocarbons, fatty acids, fatty acid esters,fatty alcohols and mixtures thereof.
 15. A composition as claimed inclaim 11, wherein component a) is in purified or unpurified form, and i)is present as a mixture of lactone and acid form, with an acid fractionof 10% to less than 60% by weight, or ii) consists to a fraction of >90%by weight of the lactone form, which can be solubilized by adjustment ofpH to a level of between 6 and 8, or iii) is present as methyl or ethylester, with a fraction of 1% to 100% by weight of the respective ester.16. A composition as claimed in claim 11, wherein component a) is asophorolipid of formula 1 or 1a,

where R¹ and R² independently of one another are either H or an acetylgroup, R³ is H or a methyl, ethyl or hexyl group, R⁴ independently ateach occurrence is a saturated or unsaturated divalent, branched orunbranched organic group, R⁵ is H or a methyl group, with the provisothat the total number of the carbon atoms in groups R⁴ and R⁵ does notexceed the number
 29. 17.-19. (canceled)